All Parking Services UK Ltd

Coupon-mad

Then you have no choice but to simply tick 'no' (which means 'no I'm not answering').

They have no right to make appeal appear (or to be) conditional on saying if the appellant keeper/hirer was driving or not. That was officially banned by David Dunford at the DVLA over a decade ago.

Here's the same ZZPS webpage used by victims of Azure Parking:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81763594#Comment_81763594

Like I said on that thread, The DVLA and BPA issued a communication years ago that operators CANNOT make appeals appear reliant upon the keeper having to say if they were driving or not.

It's typical ZZPS scam conduct (just look at their Trustpilot reviews!) to send a keeper a notice saying they're liable under the POFA, yet refusing their right to appeal.

A keeper is perfectly entitled to appeal.

Here's the BPA and DVLA's stated position on this (thanks to Siross for this useful DVLA email). It is not allowed to appeal to make appeal conditional upon saying who was driving:

From the DVLA in 2014:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64401866#Comment_64401866

The new statutory Code & framework MUST stop operators and scum time-waster greedy cling-on DRAs from doing this to keeper appellants.

They've also added a £1.95 'handling fee' which is clearly an unnecessary abuse because PCNs are set too high already and are all about wanting payment!

The MHCLG's wider regulatory framework must ban that completely to nip potential 'cap' workarounds in the bud.

aaz911

evening,

this is the response i have received?

Shall i reply with the following, or something else?

"Thank you for your email. I note your comments regarding the Single Code of Practice. However, as the Registered Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver.
I have provided my grounds for appeal. Please now proceed to either cancel the charge or issue a formal rejection along with a unique 10-digit POPLA (or IAS) verification code so that I may take this matter to independent adjudication. I will not be providing driver details, and I expect you to handle this appeal based on the information already provided."

Coupon-mad

I'd say:

Dear ZZPS,

Stop lying, again.

The only applicable legislation is the POFA and Schedule 4 categorically does NOT 'entitle' you to pursue the keeper, unless the Act has been full complied with.

Further, the DVLA and BPA issued a communication to all AOS members, several years ago, reminding operators that they CANNOT make appeals appear conditional upon the keeper having to say if they were driving or not.

Send me a POPLA Code or shut up and cancel the PCN. Failing that, ZZPS and your client will be reported to the BPA.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

YOUR NAME

aaz911

hey all,

i replied above and now got this letter. please advise on next steps.

Thank you

Le_Kirk

As the letter states, you can appeal to POPLA and for advice on this read the NEWBIES Post 3.

Gr1pr

Well, They appear to have finally issued a popla code in that reply, so you now have a choice to make

Choice 1 = Appeal to popla with a suitably worded popla appeal, with evidence where possible, which is what your last communication written by coupon mad above intimated ( popla code or cancel the pcn. )

Or

Choice 2 = Ignore them

aaz911

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned and I appeal against the parking charge on the following grounds:

1. The operator has failed to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
2. The operator has failed to identify the driver
3. Inadequate signage / no contract formed
4. No evidence of landowner authority
5. The operator has failed to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is a relevant issue in this case because the operator has issued the PCN to me on the basis that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

There is no allegation within the PCN that I was driving the vehicle in question.

The form and substance of the Notice is clearly intended to allow the operator to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the Act.

This appeal must therefore be decided with reference to the basis on which the PCN has in fact been issued. That basis is that I am the keeper, not the driver.

Whether the operator may, could, or might at some future point pursue me on the basis that I am alleged to be the driver is irrelevant to this appeal.

A creditor only has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 where the criteria in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 are met.

Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires that the conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met.

Paragraph 6(1)(b) requires that a Notice to Keeper is given in accordance with paragraph 9.

Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

The Notice does not include this information. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

The Notice does not include this information. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.

This is separate to the warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f).

The Notice does not include this information. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

As the operator has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4, keeper liability does not apply.

1. The operator has failed to identify the driver

The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever as to the identity of the driver and instead seeks to rely upon assumptions.

In correspondence rejecting the appeal, the operator stated:

“In absence of driver details, you as the registered keeper can therefore be assumed to be the driver.”

Such an assumption is insufficient to establish liability.

There is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.

The applicable legislation is Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which creates a statutory mechanism for keeper liability only where its mandatory conditions are strictly complied with.

As the operator has failed to comply with Schedule 4, liability cannot transfer from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

1. Inadequate signage / no contract formed

The signage at the site was inadequate and incapable of forming a contract with the driver.

The car park contained only a single sign positioned several car lengths away on a rear fence. The sign was unlit and the vehicle was parked during hours of darkness.

The terms were therefore not prominently displayed nor capable of being read before parking.

The signage failed to provide adequate notice of the parking terms and charge and therefore no contract could have been formed with the driver.

This also fails the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice regarding clear and conspicuous signage.

Further, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court placed significant weight on the prominence, clarity and legibility of the signage. The signage in the present case falls far below that standard.

Accordingly, no contract was capable of being formed.

1. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue and pursue parking charges at this site.

As the operator does not own the land, I require it to produce an unredacted contemporaneous copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner.

A witness statement or heavily redacted agreement will not be sufficient.

The contract must specifically demonstrate:

• the boundaries of the land to which enforcement applies;
• that the operator has authority to issue parking charges;
• that the operator has authority to pursue unpaid charges in its own name; and
• the dates for which such authority applies.

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to have written authorisation from the landholder. In the absence of strict proof of such authority, the operator has no standing to issue or pursue this charge.

For all the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

aaz911

hey all,

above seem ok to send

Gr1pr

Incorrect numbering, doesn't match the bullet point menu near the beginning

Le_Kirk

You have para 5 as a repeat of para 1 in the headline reasons.